This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

#151DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/17/2013 9:43:43 AM
"Are none of them saved? Maybe. I don't see how that's impossible. "
How naive. Are you sure you're a statistician? Go to an African Church and then tell me if some of them are 'saved'.

"But even if they're all saved, I don't see how their suffering is problematic. Compared to an eternity of happiness, any temporal suffering on earth would just be a blur."

It would be a blur. It would also have been incorrect when Jesus guaranteed sustainment.

"Please point me in the right direction. :)"

google

no seriously, I'm saying a negative, as in I can't find an example of this. Go look it up and see if you can find examples otherwise.

"Even if I were a hardcore agnostic, I would have to act as if was right about agnosticism."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

"No one is entitled to direct communication."

Of course. But our relationships are waning, if he would directly communicate I'd be in Church right now, and would be getting paperwork done to go to Ecuador in just 3 months.


"Doubt is a necessary component of faith."

point being? So again, why doesn't God provide proof? He had zero problem doing this right up until around his alleged existence. it would knock out two birds with one stone.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#152JonWood007Posted 2/17/2013 9:59:47 AM
Count, I've been reading your posts, and you were the one arguing from ignorance by saying that because we're not omniscient, we cant make evaluations about God. The other guy was just asking you to demonstrate your point. You're shifting the burden of proof here.

As for proving objective morality exists to a degree without God. Here's what I want Christians like Count who argue this to do. Hold out one of your hands straight out, palm down. Use your other hand to slap the back of the hand you held out. What do you feel? Pain, right? It stings. Is that a good feeling? Probably not. Is it a feeling most people like to feel? No. Okay. So to avoid making people feel pain, shouldn't we make rules to stop people from causing harm to others? I suggest anyone who buys into this "morality is totally opinion without God" nonsense to read some political theory. A few philosophers that may be particularly helpful on this subject are Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes discusses why government, even tyrannical government, can be superior to pure chaos, and Locke discusses the concept of the social contract, which IMO is an important part of grasping morality without God.

Just because you don't have a magic sky wizard to tell you what to do doesn't boil down morality to simply "opinion". Because we still live in an objective reality. We live in a reality in which breaking a limb doesn't feel good, it ****ing hurts. We live in a reality in which most people want to keep living and not die horrible deaths from each other. You can argue that those feelings are "subjective", but they are things that are normal for human beings to feel, and most healthy human beings do feel that way. Pain is still pain. A broken limb is still a broken limb. These facts are not dependent on whether God exists or not. Now, yes, theoretically, societies can make bad rules (and I'd argue that they have), but the thing is, you can show objectively how some rules are better than others once you begin setting goals for what morality should accomplish, and then measure the effectiveness of those rules.

And that's why I reject Biblical morality for a basis of morality. Because you have a god who apparently isn't doing much to reduce pain and suffering, but is causing it. You have strict draconian rules instituting the death penalty for just about anything, at times, you have God ordering the killing of men, women, and children, you know, noncombatants. You have rape marriages, etc. Now, this crap may have made sense given the context of 3000 years ago, but we've evolved as a species. We no longer think slavery is acceptable, for example. Fact is, I'd rather take a "subjective" morality in which a bunch of well educated, enlightened representatives make decisions for the people based on the facts of the universe, and the concerns of the people, than to base their morality arbitrarily off of some old code claimed to be from God. If anything, doing so is a massive cause for pain and suffering nowadays. Look at the Muslim world and their Sharia law. Look at how people who don't buy into their religion get executed in some of these countries. Look at how little girls are attacked because they dare get an education. I'll take man made morality over your so called "God given" morality any day. Because quite frankly, in the 21st century, religious law is horribly outdated, and flat out sucks in practice. Not to mention we haven't even proven it was made by God. Given the brutalness of it, it seems a lot more likely it was made by a bunch of guys from 3000 years ago. In other words, it's their "opinion".

Also, Thug, dont bother arguing with OW. We argued for 1000+ posts over this topic before. You're wasting your time, trust me.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#153DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/17/2013 10:14:16 AM
"That which can be ignorantly asserted can be ignorantly dismissed. "

So the latter

":)
That's not a proof. A triangle is defined as having three sides. By pointing out a three-sided shape, you simply assumed that the definition is true, which is circular logic. Why is a triangle not a circle? Because it isn't. You can't prove it because the definitions are true by definition.
So if God is defined as being omniscient, then he just is. That's how definitions work."

No, God id demonstrated by being omniscient. I don't know a God is God until he shows me something only God can do.

"That's just healthy skepticism, not an ignorant argument. "

You seem to be operating on the axiom that I haven't considered trusting God on this. Also, the two are the same. I use skepticism to only take on realistic positions. Not throw all knowledge out the window.

"See, I'm a part-time statistician, so I do this in real life quite often. "
Appeal to authority

"A sound conclusion is impervious to the type of attacks I'm making. As many variables need to be accounted for as possible. If you're unable to defend against my proposals and patch up the holes I'm pointing out, your position needs to be modified.


"Murder is not the correct term since it refers to unlawful killing. You can't say God is a murderer until you've shown his killings are wrong. For the rest, subjective repulsion is not a strong argument."

the burden of proof is on him not me. Murder, by your definition, is a killing without justification. until God demonstrates justification and demonstrates there was not a simpler solution to the problem, he is by default a murderer.

From: countzander | #143
Genesis


The second account may be a reiteration of the first one. There are other parts of the Bible where stories are repeated and told in different ways: the Gospels and the narrative of the monarchy, for instance.



Doesn't say that at all. And if it is a reiteration, it's a contradicting one. Different ways is a contradiction. Not just different styles. One story says something that I cannot hold as true if I hold the other.

"
The thing in Isaiah is a taunt to the king of Babylon. The thing in Deuteronomy is a law for the Israelites. (Read the entire chapters.)"

I would LOVE for you to point me in the right direction.

"The verse in Isaiah is explicitly metaphorical... Grasshoppers, curtains...

To say nothing of the fact that God is supposedly omnipresent..."

When he says grasshoppers and curtains, it's a clear simile saying that we are as small as grasshoppers to him. the entire thing is not metaphorical.

"As for the Temptation, you don't think that maybe this evil entity could just--I don't know--show Jesus an image of the world empires? I mean, the Bible does ascribe supernatural abilities to the devil.
cter." It doesn't say the Devil did this supernaturally or show him an image. It just says he showed him.

"People change, and meekness doesn't mean you're immune to anger."

Conceded


"Maybe he hanged himself over a cliff or something."

doesnt say that at all.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#154DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/17/2013 10:37:48 AM
From: countzander | #144
Death of Jesus


The Gospel's were passed down orally for several decades before being written down. Of course minor details are gonna differ.


thats my point. If I have to assume one thing I have to assume the other. Also, I find those details to be major and pivotal. Don't call it minor unless you can prove an objective standard by which to gauge the focus point. anything else is just subjective repulsion.

Also, if they were handed down orally then they are not a reliable piece of evidence. thus, there goes the historicity argument, thus null hypothesis happens to Christianity. Are you really sure this is your apology of choice?

As gohan once pointed out, I'm not sure how much of the Gospels were actual firsthand accounts. As gohan pointed out, you can almost see a game of telephone being played from Mark to John. (M, M, L, J are generally considered to be the order the Gospels were written in)


"That's actually a translation error. In the Greek version, the word three is used. But in the Hebrew texts, seven is used."

and thus a contradiction. Just because theres human error doesn't mean I can't assume the Bible without assuming both of those. I definitely believe that the Bible has human error, I think it was just humans who wrote it, no divine inspiration or telepathic communication or whatever.

"This one is as old as Christianity itself and has numerous rebuttals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Explanations_for_divergence"

these are all rationalizations, not reasons.

Alleged contradiction of God's benevolence.

http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Isaiah%2045.7

Just because God acknowledged the contradiction doesn't mean it's not a contradiction.



The first one refers to a test of faith. The second one refers to encouraging sinful behavior. Read the entire chapters.


You're operating on the priori that a test of faith is defined by God doing it, and then accepting the conclusion that any tempting of God is just a test of faith. I'll elaborate on this (and finish responding) later, I g2g. Feel free to respond to what I already have responded to in the mean time. Btw, sorry for my rudeness earlier, drinks and debate don't mix.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#155countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:39:47 PM
Why is it impossible? If I just knew he existed instead of having 'faith', then I would be capable of receiving discipline as well.


Hebrews 11. God shows himself only those who believe in him while making an effort to find him. You don't believe in God.

I literally just de-constructed the intent of a specific law and showed how its weaknesses and specifically gave examples of problems it created. ...


You're not God. You don't know what is intent was/is.

How loving. It's not a religion, it's a relationship, right? Y'know, we're supposed to be his bride, well I think God's a wifebeater. I mean if we 'sin', he kills us and sends us to burn forever, unless we beg for forgiveness and dedicate our lives to glorifying him. And he doesn't care about our opinion at all. I want a divorce, but he tortures me with fire if I go through with it :C But hey, being a wifebeater is automatically good.


That's just a bunch of sentimental crap that people have introduced into the religion. God holds the monarchy of heaven and rules the universe with a firm but gentle hand. While the Bible says all that stuff about love, it is important to not gloss over God's active hatred of sin.

No, we can get closer to certainty with some moralities than we can others, there's just a margin for error. In fact, I don't think an objective morality exists. As I demonstrated with the Bible's rape law, when we let morals shape situations rather than situations shape morals, it's bound to blow up in our faces. You keep on acting like God's morality is objective. You keep assuming he has good intentions for us. When I read the Bible, I am addressing the claim that God is real and omnibenevolent. When I read the claims of what I consider evil and you consider good, I'm trying to find the conclusion he's omnibenevolent. I can't just accept my premise as my conclusion.


I don't accept your assumption. I think there's too wide a knowledge gap between omniscient knowledge and finite knowledge. I think that gap is too large for us to bridge. Then you say that you're an adherent to relative morality. But think about the implication. If morality is relative for us, then it is for God as well. If God and man both have their own ideas of what's right, I'm inclined to side with whoever has the ability to back up his ideals. >_<

neither should you accept that God is real. And I sincerely hope you wouldn't dare extrapolate this to your voting (gay marriage, abortions, indoctrinating via mission trips, fear mongering by telling people they'll go to Hell if they don't do this, telling people to save sex for marriage, etc etc. Hope you don't force your kids to Church, anything like that. Since you're claiming to reserve judgment.


(You seem to have digressed from the original point: God's morality. But--.) Reserving my judgment on God's existence would be atheism. I've spoken about this in other topics, but the logic you're suggesting would guarantee my atheism, regardless of whether Christianity is true. I cannot claim to search for the truth if I embrace a position which prevents my doing so.
Also, Faith and action need to go together. It would be dishonest to say I believe in God and then act as if I don't.

I can't have more than five quote boxes, but your last paragraph is irrelevant. Subjective repulsion does not make for a good rebuttal. You shouldn't allow your sentiments of sexuality and equality to cloud your emotionless reason.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#156countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:39:53 PM
How naive. Are you sure you're a statistician? Go to an African Church and then tell me if some of them are 'saved'.

People have a tendency to delude themselves. Maybe Eastern Orthodoxy is the real Christianity? It's not impossible that the African churches are all wrong. I'm not saying that they are, only that it's possible.

It would be a blur. It would also have been incorrect when Jesus guaranteed sustainment.


You should read the iRobot stories. They have better examples or irony than anything Jesus said.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


You accused me of being intellectually dishonest since, if I claim to not know the truth, I should just be an agnostic. I shouldn't act as if I know something when I don't. My defense is that I could accuse an agnostic of doing the same thing. Agnostics believe that they're right about agnosticism, even if they don't know it's true.

Of course. But our relationships are waning, if he would directly communicate I'd be in Church right now, and would be getting paperwork done to go to Ecuador in just 3 months.


If anything, it's only more difficult to be a Christian than before, not impossible. No one ever said it would be easy.

point being? So again, why doesn't God provide proof? He had zero problem doing this right up until around his alleged existence. it would knock out two birds with one stone.


Even in the good 'ol days, not everyone believed the miracles. It would seem as if miracles aren't sufficient.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#157countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:42:14 PM
No, God id demonstrated by being omniscient. I don't know a God is God until he shows me something only God can do.


You don't need to demonstrate a triangle has three sides because it has three sides by definition. God's omniscience doesn't need demonstration because God is defined as having that characteristic.

the burden of proof is on him not me. Murder, by your definition, is a killing without justification. until God demonstrates justification and demonstrates there was not a simpler solution to the problem, he is by default a murderer.


Unlawful means immoral, not unjustified. A person can justify murder by claiming self-defense, but that doesn't make it right.
When you accuse God of being a murder, you can do so only by applying to him human a human idea or morality. It's similar to a child accusing his parents of being unfair since they won't let him stay up late.

Doesn't say that at all. And if it is a reiteration, it's a contradicting one. Different ways is a contradiction. Not just different styles. One story says something that I cannot hold as true if I hold the other.


It's a contradiction if and only if they both cannot be true at the same time, not if they're just a little different. Even if you're a literalist, there's nothing in either story which requires that the other story be false. It's not as if the Bible says "God made Adam and Eve" and then later "Adam and Eve created themselves, not God." That's a real contradiction, not the minutia you're pointing out.

I would LOVE for you to point me in the right direction.


Read the entire chapters. I even read them myself before I responded. You have the reference.

When he says grasshoppers and curtains, it's a clear simile saying that we are as small as grasshoppers to him. the entire thing is not metaphorical.


So it's not literal. It makes use of poetic devices, rather than strict prosaic ones.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#158countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:42:22 PM
It doesn't say the Devil did this supernaturally or show him an image. It just says he showed him.


The Bible doesn't say how Jesus walked on water. It just says he did it.

doesnt say that at all.


The Harry Potter books never say that Harry Potter is white. Since the book never mentions it, he must not have a race. Absurd, right?
When reading a book, it's the reader's job to assimilate little pieces of information in order to understand the story. The author doesn't need to give every conceivable detail. Back to the suicide, I think it's fair to assimilate the two pieces of information into a coherent story. I've responded to your claim that it's a contradiction, that both details cannot be true at the same time. So can you now show how my interpretation is wrong?

thats my point. If I have to assume one thing I have to assume the other. Also, I find those details to be major and pivotal. Don't call it minor unless you can prove an objective standard by which to gauge the focus point. anything else is just subjective repulsion.


Please don't resort to troll logic. They stories are not contradictory because the details of one do not make the others impossible. Hell. How would Christian theology even change if three of the four death accounts accounts were wrong???

Also, if they were handed down orally then they are not a reliable piece of evidence. thus, there goes the historicity argument, thus null hypothesis happens to Christianity. Are you really sure this is your apology of choice?


Oral traditions are not automatically unreliable, especially if they can be corroborated with other sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_history#Methods

and thus a contradiction. Just because theres human error doesn't mean I can't assume the Bible without assuming both of those. I definitely believe that the Bible has human error, I think it was just humans who wrote it, no divine inspiration or telepathic communication or whatever.


It's not a contradiction. You just need to read the Hebrew version or a more modern English translation. If I were to translate a Spanish newspaper into English and I made a mistake, would the story automatically be false?
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#159countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:45:14 PM
these are all rationalizations, not reasons.


It does demonstrate that the stories are not contradictions. It has been shown that the details of one do not necessarily nullify the details of the other.

Just because God acknowledged the contradiction doesn't mean it's not a contradiction.


Here it does. He explicitly says that he does both good and bad things. Whenever the Bible says God does good thing x and bad thing y, God has already claimed responsibility for both.

You're operating on the priori that a test of faith is defined by God doing it, and then accepting the conclusion that any tempting of God is just a test of faith. I'll elaborate on this (and finish responding) later, I g2g. Feel free to respond to what I already have responded to in the mean time. Btw, sorry for my rudeness earlier, drinks and debate don't mix.


I'm operating on the English language. Read a more modern translation that takes into account the connotations of the word temptation.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#160JonWood007Posted 2/17/2013 2:51:01 PM

You don't need to demonstrate a triangle has three sides because it has three sides by definition. God's omniscience doesn't need demonstration because God is defined as having that characteristic.


Actually in God's case that's arbitrary and circular, although I've beaten that to death before. I'm sorry, but going back to my "the universe has objective consequences" line, God does great harm in the Bible without adequately demonstrating it.

Unlawful means immoral, not unjustified. A person can justify murder by claiming self-defense, but that doesn't make it right.
When you accuse God of being a murder, you can do so only by applying to him human a human idea or morality. It's similar to a child accusing his parents of being unfair since they won't let him stay up late.


Morality is not based on the whims of some being arbitrarily. There is intelligence behind good morality, which means that it is based on something else, like consequences. If God exists, and committed the crap he did in the Bible, I welcome him to explain the logic in his actions. Until then, you're just arguing from ignorance.

I aint responding to the rest, it's just a massive argument from ignorance.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768